Jharkhand High Court
Mandava Vishnuvardhana Rao And Anr vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 28 March, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2016 (4) AJR 217, (2016) 3 JLJR 510 (2016) 3 JCR 360 (JHA), (2016) 3 JCR 360 (JHA)
Author: D.N.Patel
Bench: D.N. Patel, Amitav K. Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
I.A. No. 6001 of 2013
with
I.A. No. 3251 of 2014
with
Civil Review No. 51 of 2013
IN THE MATTER OF
Mandava Vishnuvardhana Rao son of M. Venkata Ratnam, I.G. C.R.P.F.,
Jharkhand Sector, I.G. CRPF, CTC (T & IT) Tiril Ashram, P.O. +P.S.
Dhurwa, Jharkhand, Ranchi-340011
... ... Review-Petitioner
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
Jharkhand Against Corruption through its President Durga Oraon @ Munda
son of Dhadhu Oraon @ Munda resident of Edalhatu, Morhabadi, P.O.-
Ranchi University, P.S.-Bariatu, District-Ranchi
... ... Writ Petitioner/Respondent
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O.-
Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi
3. The Election Commission of India through its Chief Election
Commission, P.O. +P.S.-New Delhi
4. The Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
P.O. +P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi
5. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, CGO Complex,
Lodi Road, P.O. +P.S. Lodhi Road, New Delhi
6. The Director General of Police (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Adre
House, P.O. +P.S. Kanke, Ranchi
7. The Inspector General (Vigilance), Jharkhand, Adre House, P.O.
+P.S. Kanke, Ranchi
8. K.D. Singh, Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), Rajyasabha,
Secretariat, P.O. +P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi
9. Parimal Nathwani, Member of Parliament, (Rajyasabha),
Rajyasabha, Secretariat, P.O. +P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi
10. Uma Shankar Akela, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, Dhurwa, P.O.
+P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi
11. Teklal Mahto (Died), MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, Dhurwa, P.O.
+P.S.-Dhurwa, Ranchi
12. Simon Marandi, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, Dhurwa, P.O. +P.S.-
Dhurwa, Ranchi
13. Rajesh Ranjan, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.-
Dhurwa, Ranchi
14. Sawna Lakra, MLA, Jharkhand Assembly, Dhurwa, P.O.+P.S.-Dhurwa,
Ranchi
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
-----
For the Petitioner: M/s Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr.Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate
(For R.10)
Mr. Satish Kumar Deo, Advocate
(For R.12)
-2-
25/Dated 28th March, 2016
Per D.N.Patel,J.
1. This civil review application has been preferred for review of an
order dated 28th January, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of this court in
W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012, especially with respect to the observations
made in paragraph no. 14 read with paragraph No. 22 of the said order.
2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
was, at the relevant time, I.G.,Vigilance, viz. Head of the Vigilance
Department. The Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 28th
January, 2013 has made certain observation against this petitioner in the
aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, while directing that the investigation be
handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, in paragraph No. 14 to
be read with Paragraph 22 of the said order, hence, this civil review has
been preferred .
It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that without
giving any notice to the petitioner these observations were made by the
Division Bench. In fact, the petitioner is neither lethargic nor responsible
for the observations made by the Division Bench about lethargic approach
of the Vigilance Department in carrying out the investigation.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED
SOCIETY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (1999)6 SCC
667, para 173 to 179 and on the basis of the aforesaid decision it has
been submitted that contents of paragraph 14 to be read with paragraph
22 of the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the W.P.(PIL) No.
2002 of 2012 dated 28th January, 2013 may be omitted in so far as they
are against this petitioner.
3. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, it appears that W.P.(PIL) No. 2002 of 2012 was
preferred because there were serious allegations of horse trading in Rajya
Sabha elections in the year 2010 in the State of Jharkhand. A sting
operation was conducted by the National News Channel, IBN7, New Delhi
wherein some MLAs have been shown saying that they have been bribed
by the candidates who contested the Rajya Sabha Election held in the
year 2010. The M.L.A.s in question are as under:
-3-
(i) Simon Marandi
(ii) Rajesh Ranjan,
(iii) Uma Shankar Akela
(iv) Sawna Lakra
(v) Teklal Mahto (Expired) & Another
The aforesaid names have been given by the counsel for the
petitioner. He could not furnish the name of the 6th person.
4. Because of this sting operation, which was broadcasted on 2nd
August, 2010, FIR was lodged upon which Vigilance Case No. 31 of 2010
was registered on 4th August, 2010, but, till the end of January, 2013
investigation was not completed. Meanwhile, another Horse Trading case
was also reported in the State of Jharkhand. The investigation of first case
was not over and another offence of similar nature came into light. This
indicates the slow pace of investigation, which gave rise to W.P.(PIL) 2002
of 2012. It is unfortunate to note here that people of Jharkhand may
consider themselves lucky that no third case of horse trading, as on today,
is registered here because, apparently, such grave offences has become a
order of the day in this State for which credit certainly goes to the
lackadaisical attitude of the Investigating agencies functioning on behalf of
the State. .
5. As the investigation was delayed the Division Bench of this Court
with few observations in order dated 28th January, 2013 in W.P.(PIL) No.
2002 of 2012 handed over the investigation to the Central Bureau of
Investigation. It appears that the whole investigation was carried out by the
Vigilance Department at a snails pace. It is surprising that the investigation
was not completed even in the year 2012 considering the gravity of the
matter and the facts that this incident took place in the year 2010 and
during the investigation of the first case a second Horse trading case has
also been registered. Moreover, looking to the order passed by this court,
it appears that the observation was general in nature and no direction was
made against any particular officer, let alone this petitioner. This is
apparent, even looking to paragraph 14 of the order, wherein, in fact, it has
been observed by the Division Bench of this court that the Central Bureau
of Investigation, while carrying out the investigation in the case in question,
may also investigate with respect to lethargic approach of the Vigilance
-4-
Department in investigation to find out whether there is a criminal
conspiracy between the officials and the accused persons.
6. All care has been taken by the Division Bench of this court while
giving direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation in paragraph No. 14
read with paragraph No. 22 of the Order dated 28th January, 2013 and if
the petitioner is innocent there is nothing to be worried about and if he is
involved in any manner, in making the investigation progress at a slow
pace intentionally, as alleged, then he must face the consequences.
7. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision
rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in COMMON CAUSE, A
REGISTERED SOCIETY vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported
in (1999)6 SCC 667, para 173 to 179.
We have perused the aforesaid decision and at length this decision
has been read over to this court during the course of argument. In the
aforesaid reported case there were direct observations against the
concerned Ministers by name, looking to paragraph No. 5,6 and 10
thereof, whereas, in the order dated 28th January, 2013 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(PIL) No.2002 of 2012, the
observations made in paragraph 14 to be read with paragraph 22 were
general in nature and there was no direction against any particular officer.
In the order in question, the Division Bench has made some
observations directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to carry out
investigation against those who are involved in the offences and there was
no particular direction against this petitioner. General are the observations
in paragraph 14 to be read with paragraph 22 of the said order and these
observations make the present case different from the aforesaid reported
decision and hence the said reported decision does not support the case
of this petitioner and we see no reason to review the order dated 28th
January, 2013 passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.P.(PIL) No.
2002 of 2012.
8. (a) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aibam Pishak Sharma, reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 389, at Para no. 3 as under :
"3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his
predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had
overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which
showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in
the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by
-5-
then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting
the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made
in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the
reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes
a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo
Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the
Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of
review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the
exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be
exercised on the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could
not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it
may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of
appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate
powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner
of errors committed by the subordinate court."
(Emphasis supplied)
(b) It has further been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported
in (1995) 1 SCC 170, specially at Para nos. 8, 9 and 15 as under :
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of
an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the
powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with
similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to
review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this
Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak
Sharma, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the
following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh
v. State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226 of the
Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the
power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The
power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person
seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the
time when the order was made; it may be exercised where
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is
found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground.
But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a
court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused
with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to
correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate
court."
-6-
9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment,
the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they
were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error
apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So
far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error
apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must
strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any
long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the
observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale
wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the
following observations in connection with an error apparent on the
face of the record:
An error which has to be established by a long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably
be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from
self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be
established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an
error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the
rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such
a writ.
15. In our view the aforesaid approach of the Division Bench
dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has
overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC by merely
styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as
suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or
error apparent in view of the settled legal position indicated by us
earlier. In substance, the Review Bench has reappreciated the entire
evidence, sat almost as court of appeal and has reversed the findings
reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division
Bench's findings regarding C.S. Plot No. 74 were found to be
erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that
would be the function of an appellate court. Learned counsel for the
respondent was not in a position to point out how the reasoning
adopted and conclusion reached by the Review Bench can be
supported within the narrow and limited scope of Order 47, Rule 1
CPC. Right or wrong, the earlier Division Bench judgment had
become final so far as the High Court was concerned. It could not
have been reviewed by reconsidering the entire evidence with a
view to finding out the alleged apparent error for justifying the
invocation of review powers. Only on that short ground, therefore,
this appeal is required to be allowed. The final decision dated
8-7-1986of the Division Bench dismissing the appeal from Appellate Decree No. 569 of 1973 insofar as C.S. Plot No. 74 is concerned as well as the review judgment dated 5-9-1984 in connection with the very same plot, i.e., C.S. Plot No. 74, are set aside and the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 3-8-1978 allowing the second appeal regarding suit Plot No. 74 is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs."
(Emphasis supplied)
(c) It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715, specially in Para nos. 7 to 9 as under :
-7-"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:
"What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(Emphasis supplied)
(d) It has further been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78, specially in Para nos. 13 to 18 as under :
"13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit". The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not -8- be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. held as follows:
(SCR p. 186) "[T]here is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. ... where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out."
14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury it was held that:
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations:
'It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.' " (SCC pp. 172-73, para 8)
15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a judgment or an order could be sought: (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.
-9-16. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma this Court held that there are definite limits to the exercise of power of review. In that case, an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code was filed which was allowed and the order passed by the Judicial Commissioner was set aside and the writ petition was dismissed. On an appeal to this Court it was held as under: (SCC p. 390, para 3) "It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
17. The judgment in Aribam case has been followed in Meera Bhanja. In that case, it has been reiterated that an error apparent on the face of the record for acquiring jurisdiction to review must be such an error which may strike one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale were also noted: (AIR p. 137) "An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." (SCR pp. 901-02)
18. It is also pertinent to mention the observations of this Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi. Relying upon the judgments in Aribam and Meera Bhanja it was observed as under: (SCC p. 719, para 9) "9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."
(Emphasis supplied) -10-
(e) Recently in a case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Mawasi, reported in (2012) 7 SCC 200, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, specially in Para nos. 26 to 30 and 32 to 35, has held as under :
"26. At this stage it will be apposite to observe that the power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi-judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so. Article 137 empowers this Court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The rules framed by this Court under that article lay down that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which reads as under:
Order 47 Rule 1:
"1. Application for review of judgment.--(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved--
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case of which he applies for the review.
Explanation.--The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
27. The aforesaid provisions have been interpreted in several cases. We shall notice some of them. In S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka, this Court referred to the judgments in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai and Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Sing and observed: (S. Nagaraj case, SCC pp. 619-20, para
19) "19. Review literally and even judicially means re- examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts -11- culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Sing that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered: (Rajunder Narain Rae case, MIA p.
216) '... nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, errors have been introduced, these courts possess, by common law, the same power which the courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in. ... The House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have, however, gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects, in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies.' Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under:
'It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard.' Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitution-makers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Article 137 of the Constitution. And clause (c) of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order 40 had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, 'for any other sufficient reason' in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of court. The court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice."
28. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, the three-Judge Bench referred to the provisions of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure, which was similar to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and observed: (AIR p. 538, para 32) -12- "32. ... It is needless to emphasise that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order 47 Rule 1 of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein.
It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely,
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and
(iii) for any other sufficient reason.
It has been held by the Judicial Committee that the words 'any other sufficient reason' must mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule'. (See Chhajju Ram v. Neki.) This conclusion was reiterated by the Judicial Committee in Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath and was adopted by our Federal Court in Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter, FC at pp. 110-11. The learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal recognises the aforesaid limitations and submits that his case comes within the ground of 'mistake or error apparent on the face of the record' or some ground analogous thereto."
29. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., another three- Judge Bench reiterated that the power of review is not analogous to the appellate power and observed: (AIR p. 1377, para 11) "11. ... A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out."
30. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, this Court answered in affirmative the question whether the High Court can review an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution and proceeded to observe: (SCC p. 390, para 3) "3. ... But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
-13-32. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Court observed: (SCC p. 719, para 9) "9. ... An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC ... A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'."
33. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, R.P. Sethi, J., who concurred with S. Saghir Ahmad, J., summarised the scope of the power of review in the following words: (SCC p. 251, para 56) "56. ... Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised."
34. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, the Court observed: (SCC p. 82, para 13) "13. ... The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing 'on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason'. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict."
35. In State of W.B. v. Kamal Sengupta, the Court considered the question whether a Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can review its decision, referred to Section 22(3) of that Act, some of the judicial precedents and observed:
(SCC p. 633, paras 21-22) "21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier.
22. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the -14- face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision."
(Emphasis supplied)
9. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this civil review petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of this civil review petition, I.A. No. 3251 of 2014 and I.A. No. 6001 of 2013 also stand dismissed.
(D.N.Patel, J.) (Amitav K.Gupta, J.) s.m.